My knowledge of music structure is rudimentary, I'm very plebian on this even though I took a couple of uni music classes. I'm one of those people who "know what I like", though what I like changes. I can be tied to music in emotional response, am less sharp re intellectual thrill. A lot of scientist friends are Bach mad, for example, which I observe is different from my apprehension. I can do sudden switches. I despised opera until one day I enjoyed it, though I'd still have to suicide if forced to hear much Wagner. I'm a person that'll admit I heard Coltrane and wanted to slink out of the venue to achieve surcease, and didn't because I liked my date and wanted to at least try to like it. I don't feel that way about Coltrane and slinking or striding away, all this time later. I can overdose on someone, the guitarist Wes Montgomery coming to mind. Had probably five albums and tossed them - one day I simply could not stand his sound.
I suppose that is a great change with music distribution now.. people can listen and react with less investment.
0 Replies
Robert Gentel
1
Reply
Sun 15 Feb, 2009 07:35 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
The Pentacle Queen wrote:
Yeah... it's not as 'bad' as some other Jazz... I can see it is well constructed. I don't like the 'colour' of the tonality, but then again I never do. To me the piano just seems really aimless, the whole thing has a meandering kind of quality that I don't really 'get.' Perhaps that is because I don't like meandering.
Yeah, like I said, this particular version is all over the place. The more typical interpretations are very straightforward and I prefer them. It's probably the most covered Jazz standard of all time, so there are a lot of different interpretations. I like two in particular, one of Monk doing the piano solo (and he doesn't improvise much) and another is the Blackhawk one I already spoke of.
Edit: I finally found a decent interpretation online, here is a Monk piano solo that I think does the piece justice, the one at the Blackhawk is better still (with his quartet).
I used to feel the same way as you do about Jazz, and I suspect you need to seek out the more melodic stuff. Smooth Jazz, Jazz Samba and the like, and avoid the more frenetic stuff for now.
Check out Stan Getz and his work with João Gilberto, Charlie Byrd and others. It's melodic stuff that was more palatable to me in my initial Jazz exploration. Hell I didn't like Miles Davis till fairly recently as I tend to like very melodic music and initially didn't "get" some of the more frenetic jazz, if you are the same you might want to start where I did.
b) In the process of singing and playing it my musical abilities are challenged
c) When everything is just right, improvisation can set you free
I'd much rather play music than listen to it, so my views are based on playing for people for $
I am just as happy playing country, metal, jazz, blues, surf, reggae, pop, rock etc as I am jazz
0 Replies
ossobuco
1
Reply
Sun 15 Feb, 2009 09:12 pm
@ossobuco,
Laurindo Almeida doing Jobim's One Note Samba (linked on a2k earlier by Robert) -
It's on the Collaboration Album with the Modern Jazz Quartet.
It accelerates after a bit.
0 Replies
hingehead
2
Reply
Sun 15 Feb, 2009 09:14 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
Hi again your majesty
I think that the way you talk, enjoy and intellectualise about music gives some clues about why you don't like jazz. Much jazz prides itself on not having a direction, it's a bit of merry go round that you get on and get off as suits you.
I studied scriptwriting - I'm a **** to watch television drama with - I can pick who did it within the first quarter of an hour, usually, such is the craft of writing within the constraints of that medium. I think your expertise has killed your aural 'taste buds' where jazz is concerned.
I was married to a playwright/screenwriter and myself have read zillions of crime procedurals. My pleasure now is in the thrown off comments about real life, trenchant or piquant observations, good detail - not the storyline or plotting. This may have an analogy to music - but I don't know, in music I'm busy still at the 'I know what I like' level (a mongo santamaria vid I heard this evening).
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Reply
Sun 15 Feb, 2009 11:26 pm
I just like some music and don't like other that much.
I don't like all periods of jazz, only the earlier times ... and the one or other piece of newer jazz.
But I've got about 600 jazz cd's, ainly Dixieland, Swing ...
S'funny Walter - dixieland annoys the bejeezus out of me, as does the English revival of same (Kenny Ball, Barber - even Acker Bilk), I like quite a bit of 'Cool' jazz, Oscar Peterson, Wes Montgomery, Miles Davis pre-1965, some Django some of the vocal jazz (but scat singing grates). I'm iffy about the prog jazz/rock stuff (Return To Forever, Mahavishnu et al). Where does Keith Jarret sit in all this?
Free jazz might well be what really annoys PQ and I can see why. I think I mentioned some stuff from a review of 'Coltrane: the story of a sound', I think this an interesting excerpt:
Quote:
Ravi Shankar was disturbed by the frustration, turbulence and turmoil he saw in this terminal phase of his friend's career. Coltrane was heaven-bent on achieving still greater intensity. The main question jazz had to face after his death was simple: if your starting point is a scream where do you go from there? The answer, in brief, is that you keep on screaming until you're hoarse. Or you go back and, like the brothers Marsalis, consolidate the pre-free tradition, Or you move sideways, out of jazz, towards rock (Davis) or "world music". Some people (Archie Shepp, David Murray) did two of the above, A few (Sanders, Don Cherry) did a bit of all three
I found it interesting that Jazz might be a dead end genre. I wish I understood music better.